zlacker

I would like them to provide and require body cams for all officers at the federal level and require all deaths and injuries occurring in police custody to be reviewed by the FBI/justice dept.

>>mberni+(OP)
I would like them to provide and require body cams for all officers

But we had police shooting at reporters on live TV already. It's not that documented misconduct didn't exist. What's missing is savage consequences for misconduct.

>>HarryH+Q7
Catching all this on camera seems to have spurred a movement, but most real change takes time to play out.

20 years ago most of this wouldn't have been caught on camera, so it seems like a net win.

>>mberni+(OP)
Police body cams have significant privacy challenges. There are no easy answers there.

Consolidation of power to the federal level is a very blunt tool. Our nation is not built on such centralization of power. In fact the foundation is the opposite.

Yes, deaths and injuries should be reviewed but this should happen at as local a level as possible.

There’s need for reform but more federal power is not the solution.

>>mulmen+6j
I am not seeing the privacy issue. In most cases the police are interacting with people out in the public rather than in their homes and businesses. In most jurisdictions it is already one party consent to record.

>>HarryH+Q7
I only take minor exception to them shooting at the press with pepper balls and things like that. Should it happen? Generally no, but you have look at it from the other side. These are large and violent riots and it’s very easy for people to pretend to be the press. It’s not practical to stop and validate press credentials under the circumstances. It sucks, but I don’t have a huge problem with it.

In terms of consequences that is why I believe there should be review at the state or federal level. The only way you can do that review at scale is with body cam footage. Most cases will be open and shut, but just the idea of being recorded AND being scrutinized by a higher authority would make a huge difference in behavior.

>>mberni+pp
Because being recorded can have a chilling effect on speech. Officers recording a peaceful, legal protest could exert undue influence on constitutional rights. It’s a reasonable concern.

More cameras is not always good, even in public and even if legal.

>>mberni+pp
Privacy issues as in "I'm in the middle of my shift and need to use the restroom, but can't shut off the always-on recording" is a common example.

>>LevGol+tG
It could just be that police testimony is not admissible without extra video evidence. In this day and age it may make sense. Especially given how the George Floyd and Amy Cooper incidents wouldn't have been known without video evidence since both involved people lying.